Comparison of methods for quantifying dental wear caused by erosion and abrasion

Abstract

Various methods have been applied to evaluate the effect of erosion and abrasion. So, the aim of this study was to check the applicability of stylus profilometry (SP), surface hardness (SH) and focus-variation 3D microscopy (FVM) to the analysis of human enamel and dentin subjected to erosion/abrasion. The samples were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 10): G1-enamel/erosion, G2-enamel/erosion plus abrasion, G3-dentin/erosion, and G4-dentin/erosion plus abrasion. The specimens were selected by their surface hardness, and they were subjected to cycles of demineralization (Coca-Cola®-60 s) and remineralization (artificial saliva-60 min). For groups G2 and G4, the remineralization procedures were followed by toothbrushing (150 strokes). The above cycle was repeated 3×/day during 5 days. The samples were assessed using SH, SP, and FVM. For each substrate, the groups were compared using an unpaired t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated (α = 5%). For enamel, both profilometry technique showed greater surface loss when the erosion and abrasion processes were combined (P <0.05). The correlation analysis did not reveal any relationships among SH, SP, and FVM to G2 and G4. There were significant correlation coefficients (-0.70 and -0.67) for the comparisons between the FVM and SH methods in enamel and dentin, respectively, in G1 and G3. Choosing the ideal technique for the analysis of erosion depends on the type of dental substrate. SP was not sufficiently sensitive to measure the effects on dentin of erosion or erosion/abrasion. However, SP, FVM and SH were adequate for the detection of tissue loss and demineralization in enamel.

Relative influence of brushing force transmission factors on substance loss of eroded dentine

“…However, even though the target of assessing the thickness of eroded dentine loss is the same, a difference in the results by the methods which were used has been pointed out. Passos, et al [8] reported that no significant correlation was found between surface wear on an eroded dentine through stylus profilometry and focus-variation 3D microscopy. It was also reported that toothbrush abrasion on an eroded dentine measured by surface profilometry was significantly different from that measured by microradiography, showing that profilometry measurements indicated less apparent substance loss than microradiographic results [6,7].…”

“…[3]. It has been well known that frequent toothbrushing with abrasive oral hygiene products may enhance the abrasion of eroded dentine [4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

“…Clinical [10], in situ [4,9,11] and in vitro [5][6][7][8] studies have been conducted to understand the complex nature of erosive dentine wear. In these studies, various techniques that were used to assess the mineral loss of dental hard tissues, such as microradiography [6,7], microhardness test [8], surface 3D topography [8] and scanning electron microscopy [7] have been applied to evaluate the influence of acid on dentine loss and the assessment of erosive dentine wear by toothbrushing.…”

“…In these studies, various techniques that were used to assess the mineral loss of dental hard tissues, such as microradiography [6,7], microhardness test [8], surface 3D topography [8] and scanning electron microscopy [7] have been applied to evaluate the influence of acid on dentine loss and the assessment of erosive dentine wear by toothbrushing. Optical [6,7] and mechanical [4][5][6][7][8][9]11] profilometry are techniques that have also been frequently applied for the same propose. The former could detect surface roughness and substance loss of eroded dentine by scanning specimens with a laser beam and the latter by loading the contact stylus laterally across specimens for a specified distance and specified contact force.…”

Three-dimensional optical assessment of experimental iatrogenic mechanical damage to canine dental enamel caused by a sonic scaler

“…Three-dimensional surface mapping is fast and easy. In comparison to stylus profilometry used by Brine et al (2000), the optical method does not risk damage to the sample surface (Passos et al 2013), which could provide higher reliability for repeated measurements. It was also possible to measure the absolute depth of the defects, which is an advantage over the electron microscopy used in the study of Fichtel et al (2008).…”